Sunday, January 19, 2014

NYT journalist Andrew Revkin has disappeared some of his published harsh criticism of Michael Mann, which previously stated "it's counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions" in reference to Mann, disappeared by Revkin less than 1 hour following my tweet addressed to both Revkin and Mann. The original article stated that Revkin agreed with Ken Caldeira, Gavin Schmidt, and Steven Schneider that "it's counterproductive [for Michael Mann] to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions." In other words, Mann should stick to objective science instead of "blurring the lines" between science and anti-scientific "value based opinions," but this all-too-true quote was quickly disappeared and replaced with much more obfuscated text:

Climate scientists, like all of us, come in all shapes and sizes and demeanors. I agree with Mann that it’s unwise for scientists to avoid the public debate over drivers of climate risk and options for reducing it. But I agree with Caldeira (and Gavin Schmidt and the departed Steve Schneider) that it’s counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science and values-based views on solutions.

Postscript, 5:00 p.m. *| At the asterisk above, my characterization of Mann’s positions, as Mann and others have said on Twitter, was indeed too caricatured — although I maintain that his piece could easily be interpreted as very sympathetic to one approach and critical of the other.

Here is my original tweet, sent within 10 minutes of publication of the original article on NYT:

Curry: 'I see a scientist (Michael Mann) making an accusation against another scientist (me) that I am ‘anti-science,’ with respect to my EPW testimony. This is a serious accusation, particularly since my testimony is part of the Congressional record'

Curry Challenges Mann: 'Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.'

Curry on Skepticism: 'Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.'

Pielke Sr. 'On Mann's attack on you, I have been the recipient of such vitriolic attacks by others both up front and behind my back' -- 'Please keep up your excellent and very much needed involvement in the climate science discussions!'